Blog

Criminal History Providers in Indiana

The Indiana legislature recently passed House Bill 1392 which amended laws about criminal history providers and criminal law and procedure. The background to this bill is that a much more restrictive bill passed at the end of the 2012 legislative session, but had a delayed effective date of July 1, 2013. In the meantime, the legislature appointed a study committee to review the bill and it recommended amendments. This compliance update examines the law after all of the changes.

Indiana Code Section 24-4-18 was created and deals with criminal history providers. It defines a “criminal history provider” as a person or an organization that compiles a criminal history report and either uses the report or provides the report to a person or an organization other than a criminal justice agency, a law enforcement agency, or another criminal history provider.” The term does not include the following:

A criminal justice agency;

A law enforcement agency;

Any person connected with or employed by a media outlet including newspapers or other periodical issued at regular intervals and having a general circulation, or a recognized press association or wire service, and radio or television stations as an owner, official, editorial or reportorial employee who receives income from legitimate gathering, writing, editing, broadcasting and interpretation of news.

Any person who gathers, records, compiles or disseminates criminal history information or criminal history reports solely for journalistic, academic, governmental, or legal research purposes.

The clerk of a circuit, superior, city, or town court.

The new statute defines “criminal history report” as “criminal history information that has been compiled primarily for the purposes of evaluating a particular person’s eligibility for (1) employment in Indiana; (2) housing in Indiana; (3) a license, permit, or occupational certification issued under state law; or (4) insurance, credit, or another financial service, if the insurance, credit, or financial service is to be provided to a person residing in Indiana.” It does not include information compiled primarily for the purpose of journalistic, academic, governmental, or legal research.

Criminal history information is information concerning a criminal conviction in Indiana and available in records kept by a clerk of a circuit, superior, city, or town court with jurisdiction in Indiana. It includes identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, indictments, information, or other formal criminal charges. It also includes dispositions of cases, fingerprint information, and photographs of sex or violent offenders.

Section 24-4-18-6 outlines restrictions placed on criminal history providers. According to this section, a provider may not knowingly provide a criminal history report containing a record that:

Has been expunged by marking the record ‘expunged’ or by removing it from public access;

Is restricted by a court or court rules, and is marked restricted from public disclosure;

Is reported as a Class D felony if it was entered as or converted to a Class A misdemeanor; or

The criminal history provider knows is inaccurate. However, a criminal history provider may provide such information if the person requesting the report is required by state or federal law to obtain it or it will be used solely in connection with the issuance of a public bond.

Section 24-4-18-7 deals with criminal history information updates. Under this section, a provider may not knowingly include criminal history information in a report if does not reflect material changes occurring sixty days or more before the report is delivered. There is no violation of the Act if the material criminal history information is not contained in the official record at least sixty days before the report is delivered.

Section 24-4-18-8 stipulates that a violation of sections 24-4-18-6 or 7 is a deceptive act that is actionable under the State’s Deception Consumer Sales statutes. An individual may seek remedy by bringing an action on its own behalf under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Tag Cloud

Categories

Recent Posts

Latest News

Many hiring decisions are based mostly on candidates’ past work experiences. Here’s how a background check can verify employers to make sure those hiring decisions are grounded in fact.

February 14
—
As more states legalize various forms of marijuana, past marijuana convictions are still causing concern while uncertainty over substances such as CBD drives new arrests.

February 12
—
A new bill in the New York State legislature could add new requirements for school employee background checks. Currently, private schools are not required to follow state mandates regarding background checks.

February 07
—
Some parents in El Paso, Texas have been left wondering about the strength of their city's youth sports procedures after a felon fraudulently took funds for a girls' soccer team.

February 06
—
If there is one way that volunteer organizations could serve their communities better, it’s implementing more thorough volunteer screening policies.

February 05
—
Madison County, Illinois has created a new initiative designed to help individuals overcome barriers to employment. Clients of the initiative will be able to explore criminal record expungement among other options.

February 01
—
An OfficeTeam survey found that the two most common forms of resume dishonesty had to do with past employers: job experience and job duties or responsibilities.

January 31
—
During the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, hundreds of thousands of federal employees have gone without work for more than a month. Some are finding temporary alternatives elsewhere.

January 29
—
A Florida nurse has been arrested for allegedly stealing two types of prescription pain medications from the county jail where she worked. The case highlights the importance of rigorous drug testing procedures for employment situations in which employees have access to prescription drugs.

January 24
—
After the airline failed to adequately disclose to applicants that they would undergo a background check, a court has ruled Delta did not meet its legislative obligations. The settlement highlights the importance of rigorous compliance.